Marshall/Sanow study

New study/training film....Men who shoot at goats!"

Animal studies are useful, in the abstract, but the issue of stopping power cannot be directly compared to animal tests. Even enraged attacking animals are different from attacking humans.

How many "stops" happen because the attacker decided to break off the attack after being shot? You can weed out the data where the shot was clearly not physically incapacitating, only if the case data is that detailed. Otherwise, you get a distorted image of the round's actual effectiveness.

Bad guy, shot "in the chest" with round A, drops and cries for his momma, and a lawyer. Bad guy#2 "shot in the chest" drops, and dies before medical attention arrives. #3 "shot in the chest" beats shooter down, and then walks into the emergency room. With that data, it appears round A is a 70% stopper. But real life is a bit more complicated, now isn't it.
 
Real life is indeed more complicated and more difficult, too. However, that's exactly all that can be inferred from the results, although the database of three is on the small side. But one sometimes reads articles that cover just three or four incidents on which they base their thinking. I've only read their (Marshall et al) magazine articles and I don't recall that they went into why things happened beyond being shot. They probably could have but I suppose they thought they had no qualifications about making statements about why one worked and something else worked a lot better. Of course the biggest problem is collecting enough data, reliable data, to begin to do anything at all. Ordinary people, which at least includes me, generally do not have access to anything like that.

As far as the reasons go, if being shot and realizing it was a good reason for an attacker to stop his assault, they why would you eliminate that from the database? The threat of being shot is sometimes enough to prevent an attack but I wouldn't make a guess at the effectiveness, percentage-wise. Even then, a bigger hole in the barrel is probably more effective.
 
As far as the reasons go, if being shot and realizing it was a good reason for an attacker to stop his assault, they why would you eliminate that from the database? The threat of being shot is sometimes enough to prevent an attack but I wouldn't make a guess at the effectiveness, percentage-wise. Even then, a bigger hole in the barrel is probably more effective.
Click to expand...

Because the condition that the perpetrator DECIDED to stop the attack makes a ballistic measurement inconsequential. You aren't going to market a round as one that will "Enter the body of an assailant and really make him review his decision to continue his assault." You want a round that will literally make him unable to continue whether he wants to or not. Whatever he decides at any point along the way is WAAAY far down on my list of things I care about, at the top of which is "Being able to stop this guy regardless of whether or not he's bluffing, serious, secretly a wuss, or is intent to finish this attack under the assumption that he's already going to die".

Yes we all accept that guns deter crime by their mere presence. Yes we all accept that even mildly wounding someone is sometimes enough to stop an attack. What you must also accept is that those points are irrelevant when you're looking for conclusive incapacitation ballistics data. Because the person is NOT incapacitated. They are DETERED. There is a very large difference.

~LT
 
Most of my point has been made here. Cavitation effect will vary from one shot/person/situation to the next, and even minor things, such as osmotic pressure in each cell, or velocity deviation of the projectile, can make a difference (be it small, but a difference that could effect the reaction of that cell). The majority of organs are resilient to the effect of a cavity from handgun round, and in most cases, it only causes damage to fatty tissue and small vascular tissue, making a nasty, huge bruise. Under fight or flight, most will not be phased by such a bruise, and it will not lead to a timely involuntary incapacitation.

With all of the uncertainties in the body, you would be unable to count on anything related to cavitation as a stopping aid. Most in the field (medical) I've spoken with agree fully. Shot placement is it.

All rounds have a cavitation effect, some more than others, but between common SD rounds, it is all the same. The effect itself being present is helpful enough to put a GSW in a different category of effectiveness from a knife, or other puncturing device, but it would be a stretch to say "more" effect from a similar round is necessarily better. Can't make an organ more dead than dead. There is a point of diminishing return (speaking strictly of a single organ being struck). When we speak of major changes in weight and velocity (rifles, .500 S&Ws, etc.), things may differ, because the effect may be enough to do more damage than just a bruise, and can damage nearby organs without touching them.
 
I have to conclude from re-reading this thread that people don't like the study because it didn't give the results they wanted to read.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are wrong.

We can both agree that Tim Lincecum is a good pitcher and with him you have a good chance of winning a ball game. Up comes a fella and says that based on his evidence he has a 97% chance of winning his next game and each game after that provided that no wild pitches are thrown. That Roy Halladay has a 91% chance and John Santana a 68% chance. I would be highly skeptical of this fellas evidence and figuring and the percentages. No argument on the ballplayers being good just the usefulness and accuracy of the figures.

I'm highly skeptical of M&S's evidence and their figuring and their percentages. No argument on the bullets and loads, etc. being good just the usefulness and accuracy of the figures.

tipoc
 
All rounds have a cavitation effect, some more than others, but between common SD rounds, it is all the same.
Click to expand...

While I mostly agree with this statement, there is one small sticking point I'd like to make. Even among cartridges with similar energy levels, there can be a significant difference in the temporary cavitation if one loading penetrates significantly deeper than the other. A good example of this is a .357 Magnum with heavier bullets (140grn+). These particular loadings typically penetrate much deeper than most of the other common service calibers do (often 16-20") so while they don't have much more energy than a .40 S&W, .357 Sig, or .45 ACP +P, their temporary cavitation will remain larger in diameter deeper into the target, though it may not be as large in diameter initially.
 
"stats don't lie", baseball motorcycles, handgun rounds...

This post has gone all over for pages & pages talking about cars, baseball pitchers and motorcycles but the basic point is still the same; "STATS DON'T LIE."
;)
If a college student, author, police chief etc reviewed a common handgun caliber's use in DOCUMENTED records and it showed to have a "1 shot stop" record of 90/95/96 % then that is what took place.
Ballistics R&D or testing has no real bearing on LE or armed citizen shooting incidents.
I disagree strongly with any forum member who'd honestly think a 125gr JHP in .357magnum(by any major brand: Federal, CorBon, Remington, etc) wouldn't be a good carry-duty round. The same would go for the .45acp 230gr JHP or the 155-165gr .40S&W JHP.
Now it's fair to state that not many use of force shootings would consist of one solid direct hit to the violent felon's upper torso(no entry/exit through the arms) but if those cases were reviewed and a handgun round did extremely well, then wouldn't that be worth noting?
 
Haven't you ever heard the expression, "Lies, dammed lies and statistics"?

I think the results of the study are important and helpful but I don't think they tell anyone anything surprising. But given the limitation of the study in that they only talk about one shot stops, then clearly there's more that you will take into consideration with regards to handguns and cartridges. Like maybe, how to get two hits instead of just one!
 
Now it's fair to state that not many use of force shootings would consist of one solid direct hit to the violent felon's upper torso(no entry/exit through the arms) but if those cases were reviewed and a handgun round did extremely well, then wouldn't that be worth noting?
Click to expand...

Sure it would be, and as many here have said if M&S had done this and reported on it and stopped there the work would be very useful. Particularly useful if they stated where and when the shootings occurred so that others could check the results for themselves.

But they did not stop there, instead they set up an elaborate statistical construct which attempted to weigh one type bullet's effectiveness against another and one caliber against another all based on evidence that they refused to share with anyone else. That was the problem. Or at least one problem.

This thread has gotten long but I'll just briefly point out one thing, of the many, wrong with their statistics and approach. This information is taken from their second book "Street Stoppers" from page 303 of the section that discusses the effect of double taps or two shots to the OSS area of the torso. Remember, what counts for them as a one shot stop is a hit to the area of the body between the shoulder blades and the waist line from any angle hitting any section of that area in which the person, after being hit, either drops or runs no more than 10 feet and then stops, and is judged by the person doing the shooting, or other observers, as being incapable of fighting back.

Let's just look at the results for the 40 S&W using a 135 gr. Cor-Bon JHP.

For this bullet and load they list 24 total shootings which met the OSS criteria with 23 of those resulting in OSS for a total of 94% effectiveness. Or 94% OSS for that round.

With the same round from Cor-Bon but this time with 2 hits to the OSS area of the body they list 10 such shootings of which 10 resulted in stops that met their criteria for 100% OSS rating for that round with two hits to the torso area.

Wow that sounds great, until we look closer. First the number of total shootings is too low to draw any useful statistical information from. Why print it at all? Second have two shots to the torso with this round always produced a stop and will they always? Since we can't get any better than 100% with two hits let's all just go with this round.

The more we look at the information the more questions arise.

Two hits to the torso OSS area with 40 S&W 155 Federal JHPs only give us 97%. With a 180 gr. Black Hills round we get 86% stops with two hits.

By the way, for those that care, according to M&S, while 2 hits to the chest from the Cor-on 135 gr. load for the 40S&W produce 100% stops that meet their criteria. 2 hits to the same area with a 180 gr. 10mm JHP round from Federal, Winchester or Remington produce only, at most, 82% stops. So much for Small and Weak, eh boys!

That is according to the statistics from M&S which some fellas think are straight forward and only telling the truth. This from only one small section of one of their books.

tipoc
 
That is according to the statistics from M&S which some fellas think are straight forward and only telling the truth. This from only one small section of one of their books.
Click to expand...

And it's an idea and practice that they built their entire study and publications on.

You can't do that. You CAN'T. YOU CAN'T.

Period. To do so negates all credibility and conclusivity. Period.

~LT
 
If a college student, author, police chief etc reviewed a common handgun caliber's use in DOCUMENTED records and it showed to have a "1 shot stop" record of 90/95/96 % then that is what took place.
Click to expand...

You can destroy the reliability of a study any number of ways, before you even start to compute anything.

'Cherry picking' data is a common problem (and endemic in some fields).

By defining the study narrowly ('one shot stops') you can make any conclusions drawn invalid and not supportable.

Is a two shot stop a caliber failure?
An accuracy failure?

There are loose ends all over the place.

About the only thing you can reliably conclude is that 'guns can kill people.'
 
Marshall/Sanow Reality

I came into law enforcement as an Army MP in 1970, then a small town police officer, state park ranger, and federal special agent. I carried 45ACP, 38 SW, 357, 9mm and others. We did not have any stastics but knew fast bullets that expanded were preferred. I was there when a federal agency got its first 8 boxes of federal hydrashocks for testing, then called the SDL for state department load. I and I had the pleasure of testing 50 of them. They were the answer to all stopping power issues, and were designed to fire from a SW Model 66, 2 1/2 inch barrel. I am sure most of the viewers of this forum have observed actual shooting film where people were shot center mass and did not fall. I recall one film in the Phillipines where an attacker was shot close range 5 times with 38 ball, before he gave any indication of being hit. In my case, las a law enforcement guy, we were thrilled when the Marsall data came out. It gave us something to hang our hats on. On the other hand, many of us are hunters and have observed handgun performance on game. In my case, I have shot maybe 20 whitetail, muledeer, pronghorn, and elk, with a handgun as a finishing round and a few while hunting with handguns. My experience is that in handguns--only very fast rounds finish an animal quickly. Big slow bullets do not. While, I have read the Fackler attacks on the scientific issues with the Marshall/Sanow stuff---with one exception----my personal results show the fastest stops simliar to theirs, at least on animals. The one exception, I would throw out there deals with the ultra fast fragmation bullets. Bullets like the Glazer Safety slugs--do not work on deer. Note even head shots, they are just too flimsy. Now, I routinely carry Glazers as the first round up in 380, 9mm, 38, 40, and 45. I see no value for them in 357 and 44 mag. I load my wife's 38 with 5 Glazers. So, to respond to the query, no, I do not think Marshall Sanow data is gospel. But, I believe the premise of the faster and bigger bullet the quicker the stop is basically correct. One last comment. When the FBI did their many tests the found the pentration must get through and disrupt major organs. That is the same conclusion Fairbairn came to when designing a knife for military. The blade had to be long to get into the organs. So, penetration first, expansion second, both preferred. So, if you use most of the Marshall data you will be well equipped. Also, in my view, that thing about low recoil for quick follow-up shots is overrated. When the balloon goes up and guns come out, the pucker factor is very high. You may not get that second shot, so make the first very effective and then the second and then the third as may be necessary to stop the attack. Also, think about likely scenarios. Carjacking is real, not many shots in that deal if you are sitting in a car. A robbery in a parking lot at close range is likely--not many shots in that deal. And a home burglary is real, you are not going to be throwing a lot of lead down the hallway--of your home with folks in other rooms or next door. So, IMHO, get a fast bullet you can shoot well and forget about it. When it doubt just carry what you local police carry and you will be fine.
 
There are no guarantees. If you find yourself confronted with men who mean to do you harm you may well be killed, regardless of your training, prior experience and certainly of your choice of caliber. Practice and be prepared.
 
It was never relevent because Evan Marshall is a fraud. I called BS on his findings 20 years ago. I was called everything but a child of god. Then it was proven that Evan Marshall is a fraud. He and his study were discredited years ago. His book was only relevant to those who wanted to sell small caliber pistols and ammunition.
He skewed the info to make it what what he wanted it to be.
.40 caliber and smaller, he included CNS shots
Over .40 caliber, he excluded CNS shots.
That shows an intent to defraud. He knew that CNS shots equal a one shot stop. Had he excluded CNS shots for all calibers, the results would have shown the clear superiority of the larger calibers. Tiny bullets make tiny holes and cause little damage. UNLESS you can get them to expand/fragment violently. Trouble is, that's too much of a variable to count on. Bigger bullets make bigger holes and do more damage. Armchair cowboys can throw out all kinds of BS theories and "what ifs" but the laws of physics cannot be repealed.
Expansion of gilding metal jacketed hollow points cannot be guaranteed.
Large caliber bullets do not shrink in diameter. They are always large diameter, regardless of expansion.

That said, I don't trust any cartridge to give a definite one shot stop. Not even a shotgun.
 
Last edited:
He and his study were discredited years ago. His book was only relevant to those who wanted to sell small caliber pistols and ammunition.
Click to expand...

While criticized initially by some strong opponents of his work, current criticism always goes back more than ten years and makes reference to those same old sources. I still haven't seen criticism from those LE agencies or citizens who chose their ammo based on his recommendations.

There is a lot more to his 3 books than just the manner by which he defines "stopping power".

Seems like this issue will never be water under the bridge for some. :cool:
 
.40 caliber and smaller, he included CNS shots
Over .40 caliber, he excluded CNS shots.
Click to expand...
I've heard a lot of people rake M&S over the coals, but that's the first time I've heard this particular allegation. Do you have some source that verifies this claim?
 
I don't know whether or not M&S excluded CNS shots in calibers larger than .40. I strongly believe their entire dataset is untrustworthy at best, without even getting into their method of calculation.

First, consider this post: http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=379191&postcount=20. The poster cites specific publications and LEO who said M&S misrepresented the data obtained from their police agencies.

Second, look at this article: http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm. It points to several statistical impossibilities of their dataset. Here is one example. In 1988, they publicly reported 46 instances where CCI 200 gr. .45 acp was fired, resulting in 34 one-shot stops (75%). However, they later reported in 1992 that there were 62 cases with the same ammo with 53 one shot stops (85%). That means there were 16 additional cases reported but 19 additional one-shot stops. THERE WERE MORE ONE-SHOT STOPS THAN INCIDENTS REPORTED. The article lists other examples.

The dataset they use is completely bogus. It is not simply a case of well-intentioned "researchers" making a mistake. It is not even necessary to look at their method of analysis.
 
Quote:
.40 caliber and smaller, he included CNS shots
Over .40 caliber, he excluded CNS shots.

I've heard a lot of people rake M&S over the coals, but that's the first time I've heard this particular allegation. Do you have some source that verifies this claim?
Click to expand...

First I've heard of this and I've been following these studies since first published in a magazine article, before the books. However, the M&S data, well, all published caliber performance data including that here, should be taken with a "magna cum grano salis", as there are too many uncontrollable variables in the real world.
 
Well, let me ask this of those who don't care for the studies: what are your choices for ammunition that flies in the face of their published results? And why?
 
I no longer pay attention to the M&S studies. There have been too many questions about its statistical validity to suit me.

My criteria for evaluating ammo is fairly simple. I look at published ballistic gelatin tests from any number of sources. These tests should give complete data because the one other factor in addition to penetration depth that I require is expanded diameter. Knowing this, I simply multiply the penetration depth by the expanded diameter. This gives me, very roughly, an idea of the wound area, in square inches, that the projectile has created.

I know that the FBI likes wound volume, but because soft tissue is somewhat elastic and the volume might decrease, I just prefer the wound area.

It's not perfect, I know, but it's the criteria I like to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top